its not the "religious" vote
its the homophobe vote that won it for bush
yea for banning gay marriage
wtf?
constitution says everyone is equal... bush apparently disagrees...
Bush lovers read this...
- Thread starter reckedracing
- Start date
- Replies 195
- Views 10K
We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
its not the "religious" vote
its the homophobe vote that won it for bush
yea for banning gay marriage
wtf?
constitution says everyone is equal... bush apparently disagrees...
Battle Pope
Well-Known Member
Well, the constitution does say everyone is equal... but it doesn't say anything about gays. 
I agree to disagree with Bush about gay marriage. The termonology 'marriage' should not be used because it has a religious connotation and the act of being homosexual is considered sacrilage.
I believe that they should be 'united' and be given the same tax breaks as a married couple.
Bush still got my vote along with many many others that were of the same opinion.
You're wrong again about thinking where Bush picked up all his votes. This election was about the war, the number one key issue was obviously the war. Bush won the vote, very few were looking at any other issue as significant as the war unless they were religious fanatics in which case they probably didn't even vote for Bush.
Originally posted by Battle Pope@Dec 10 2004, 11:13 AM
Well, the constitution does say everyone is equal... but it doesn't say anything about gays.
[post=429989]Quoted post[/post]
...and the constitution considered blacks as 3/4th of a person. Just because its written in the constitution obviously does not mean that it is 100% correct.
Obviously as a 'basic human right' everyone should be treated as equal AS POSSIBLE. People are different so you can't just scream 'absolute equality' like many people do in modern political correct times.
Many women activist scream to be absolute equals as males except they cannot take the dirty jokes that men normally talk about, considering it harassment...when 'the boys' are just treating her as they would treat all their other 'boys' because after all thats what she asked for.
Its my feelings that the two sexes think differently and are very different so they cannot be treated absolutely equally, its not natural. I feel that heterosexuals and homosexuals are the same way, they think different thus they're going to act and be treated differently, its only natural. I'm not saying that they should be belittled and treated as subhuman, I'm just saying that EVERYONE is NOT EQUAL so theres going to be differences in treatment and you can't ask anything else of people, unless the treatment is absurd. Not wanting to allow homosexuals to use the termonology 'marriage' is not absurd because frankly even though I'm not religious I know it goes against the literature in 'the book'. However they should get the same benefits of marriage. Thats my feelings from a psychology perspective.
I'll believe it when its proven, not just alleged. Until then...
Thats a good conspiracy theory, but guess what theres nothing to prove that other than the jibberish that was speculated by the liberal politicians there.
I believe that the machines could've been faulty, I do not belive that it was a conspiracy just machine malfunction.
To even say 'election fraud' your breath is starting to smell because you're talking out of your ...
You're speaking Latin to some of the people here. "...but but but they said he was being sanctioned and wasn't organized! He was just some little bumfuck...who had a past history of terror and violence, along with already being a criminal of war that under the genevia convention needed to be arrested..."
Bin Laden was just a little blip on the map too, no one would've thought that they could've striked terror into America, or have such an effect on our economy.
When its all said and done, in the past we've underestimated both Bin Laden and Sadaam.
Sadaam was a war criminal and a terrorist to his own people who needed to be removed from power and was only still in power because we botched an assination attempt during the Gulf War. Bush is tying up loose ends that his father's cabinet left.
94RedSiGal
Senior Member
But straight secular couples can be married. Marriage ceremonies take places in many places other than in a church. Lastly, there are many religions and not all of them have issues with being gay.
94RedSiGal
Senior Member
Still no reason to rush into a war with Iraq when the US needed to just focus on Bin Laden and dismantling his terrorist network. Our military forces are spread thin and those in the forces are being made to stay longer than their original service committment. In addition, us being there is pissing off the rest of the Arab world unnecessarily. And of course, there is the enormous amount of $$$ and American lives that this war is costing us to consider.
Regardless of what the other religions may feel about being homosexual, that doesn't mean that Christianity should feel the same way or has to. For those who subscribes to the beliefs in the bible, it is written that homosexuality is a sin. Its not for you to say whether thats right or wrong, if you ask Christians your word is the divine word of Christ and God.
The term marriage started as a religious term and still has a religious connotation, why would you want to strip that from a religion. It is not the governments place to do that, and thats exactly why our country was created. ...thats not a policy to balk on especially because its our heritage to do the exact opposite.
For a Christian to hear that homosexuals are going to get 'married' its insulting to their book and beliefs. To hear that a non religious couple is getting 'married' is also insulting to people who believe every word of the book.
Honestly I feel its not our place to combine religion and government...and thats what people get on Bush for doing, but at the same time people are trying to do the same thing in a different way. They're trying to allow the government to strip a religious ceremony. You have to think of it from all angles.
i find it amusing that you hop on your high horse about how saddam was so bad, and iraq is such a humanitarian mission, but the whole time the US MILITARY, along with the white house, has displayed a basic disregard for said GENEVIA CONVENTION... so how does your arguement justify invading iraq?
internal FBI memos clearly disagree with you sir...
you are incorrect...
no, we underestimated bin laden, and OVERestimated saddam..
hmm, i never heard this in his speeches, all i heard was WMD and al qaeda ties...
hmm, lets see how i can rip this apart...
first pologmy is allowed and condoned in the bible, men are allowed to marry more than one woman... but the gov't steps in and says this is not allowed... but according to you this is not the gov't place, now is it?
and our country was created to give people RELIGIOUS freedom, not just for christians but for ALL religious groups... so how can the biblical doctorines that some people life by be used to control others lives???
perhaps it would be a little diffrent if the machines weren't intentionally designed with no paper trail, thereby avoiding any possibility of an audit..
94RedSiGal
Senior Member
that was posted on page six and quoted in a reply 7 posts above yours...
Does that make it right? Nope.
He's always been a small blip on the map, no terrorist group can do any REAL harm to the US. 3,000 people is a drop in the bucket, not even a percent.
And thats great what the Republicans say...I already said that I left political affliation out as much as I could here.
...but if Bush was supposed to go after them for attacking the WTC then Clinton should have been expected to do the same. I believe most of you agree with that.
And recked, you're in the here and now and could obviously really give a flying hoot about whats happened in the past fews years and history in general, as a preresequite. Intelligent...
For one thing, we didn't rush into a war. Saddam was given copious amounts of time to comply with resolutions, he didn't, we went in, or so the story goes.
Another is, you don't just dismantle something like Bin Ladens terrorist network. It isn't a TV show you can just remove from the air.
The problem with terrorism, and the way everyone seems to think today is that it is not tangible. You can't grab terrorism, you can't see terrorism, smell it, or taste it. You can't see a terrorist until he has terrorized you. There's a band called the Pist, they have an album called "Ideas are Bulletproof" and that is the truest statement ever. In order to change the ideas of a people, you need to change the people and the process that let things like terrorism thrive.
Well, what about having a strict muslim hearing that it is legal to have premarital sex, walk around in a bikini, work. That is completely agaisnt their way of life. I am sure that you really don't care about that, and for sure you would never agree if the goverment started making laws that "protect" the muslim community's way of life. To a person who thinks that marrage is a religous bond, good for them. For chirstans that do not celebrate christmas in the normal "santa, lights, and tree" because its a slap in their face to look at things that way, well good for them. Does it affect me if I am that strict christan and my naighbor next door has a huge blowup manora for his holiday decorations. No.
Again, your playing devils advacate for everything. You even said you don't agree with it then you just go ahead and argue for it.
Similar threads
- Locked
